On 29/05/2004 13:26, Rick McGowan wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote...
I understand that a revised version of "Final proposal for encoding
the Phoenician script [WG2-N2746R]" has been submitted to the UTC
and included in the official document register.
Posted Friday night, yes. I insisted on receiving it, and I postponed my Friday evening dinner to upload it to the register and announce it.
I am glad to hear it, and glad that you insisted on receiving it.
Rick, I apologise to you. You obviously are doing all that is reasonable to publish this document ASAP. I'm not so sure about apologising to Mr Everson; I would first like an explanation from him of why this updated version has not been made available at http://evertype.com/formal.html along with his other formal submissions. If the explanation is a polite one that he waits until the proposal is on the WG2 document register before he adds it to his web page, that will be sufficient.
Will this document be made public? Or is there an intention to conceal
it from the public, or from the user community of the scripts in
question?
What an absurd insinuation. I am mortified and demand an apology. I'm sure Mr Everson would also demand an apology. The fact that this document was posted first to the UTC doc register reflects only my faster-than-light reflexes, being the person who insisted most emphatically on a revised proposal.
Will this "fullness of time" allow time for interested
parties to comment to the UTC and to WG2 before the proposal is
discussed by them? I am sure that these committees will want to make
sure of this.
I find your tone and insinuations offensive. The "fullness of time" for public posting of the document does not necessarily depend on Mr. Everson, it depends more on when the WG2 convenor posts the document!
I'm sorry if I misunderstood the procedure. Mr Everson's tone in his off-list reply seem to suggest that the paper would be released only when he saw fit. If I misunderstood him, I apologise.
I am certain that WG2 will not be able to accept any proposal which
has not been made public and on which the user community has not been
given the opportunity to comment.
You mistake the procedure. One makes a document and submits it to the WG2 chair, who then is at liberty to post it, or not post it, on the WG2 website, at his sole discretion. The WG2 website happens to be publicly accessible, and posting a document there *is* the act of making public. So it is not that WG2 "accepts" only "public" documents; it is that the document register of WG2 is open to the public.
Thank you for explaining the procedure, which I had misunderstood.
I have also accepted that this particular script should be
encoded, but that certain other specific definitions should be
made to enshrine within the standard the special close relationship
between the various 22 character Semitic scripts.
After a month of rather unpleasant wrangling, it is a relief to hear you publicly proclaim that you accept the encoding of Phoenician. Please do propose some wording for "other specific definitions" and submit a document with your suggestions. You would have at least a year, or two, between the time Phoenician is accepted for encoded and the time a block intro to it would be published. I'm sure the committee will welcome your input.
Well, I did state this on the public list at least two weeks ago. It seems that at last you are reading what I write, instead of assuming my position from my failure to accept the Everson orthodoxy in its entirety. But I have also made it clear that I expect more than wording added to the block introduction. For example, I have proposed interleaved collation in DUCET. At an appropriate time I will make formal input along these lines. Indeed I have already drafted something, but have not submitted it partly because I was waiting for the promised revised proposal.
Since you have now concluded that the Phoenician script *should* be encoded, a brief statement to that effect submitted to the Unicode online Reporting Form would make it into the UTC record, and be appreciated.
I will make a statement for the UTC record, but it will not be as brief as you seem to expect.
Rick
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
